On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Kees Cook <kees.cook at canonical.com> wrote: > In the continuing effort to avoid kernel addresses leaking to unprivileged > users, this patch switches to %pK for /proc/dri/*/vma. > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees.cook at canonical.com> > --- > ?drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c | ? ?9 +++++---- > ?1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c > index 3cdbaf3..be9a9c0 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_info.c > @@ -283,17 +283,18 @@ int drm_vma_info(struct seq_file *m, void *data) > ?#endif > > ? ? ? ?mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > - ? ? ? seq_printf(m, "vma use count: %d, high_memory = %p, 0x%08llx\n", > + ? ? ? seq_printf(m, "vma use count: %d, high_memory = %pK, 0x%pK\n", > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? atomic_read(&dev->vma_count), > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?high_memory, (u64)virt_to_phys(high_memory)); > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?high_memory, (void *)virt_to_phys(high_memory)); > > ? ? ? ?list_for_each_entry(pt, &dev->vmalist, head) { > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?vma = pt->vma; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (!vma) > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?continue; > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?seq_printf(m, > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"\n%5d 0x%08lx-0x%08lx %c%c%c%c%c%c 0x%08lx000", > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pt->pid, vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end, > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"\n%5d 0x%pK-0x%pK %c%c%c%c%c%c 0x%08lx000", > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?pt->pid, > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(void *)vma->vm_start, (void *)vma->vm_end, > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? vma->vm_flags & VM_READ ? 'r' : '-', > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE ? 'w' : '-', > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? vma->vm_flags & VM_EXEC ? 'x' : '-', > -- > 1.7.2.3
This is a highly reasonable patch. Does 0x%pK show up as 0x0x0 in the log, or just 0x0? Other than that... Reviewed-by: Corbin Simpson <MostAwesomeDude at gmail.com> -- When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? ~ Keynes Corbin Simpson <MostAwesomeDude at gmail.com>